Posted by Jeff from strider.pgfn.bc.ca on July 05, 1998 at 01:15:51:
In Reply to: Is a bad Indy 4 better than no Indy 4 at all? posted by Mola Ram on July 04, 1998 at 17:24:26:
A bad Indy, or none at all. Well, actually I consider Crusade to be the worst of the films because it felt the most like a sequel. It was a copy of Raiders. With the differences between Raiders and Temple, and the plethora of Indy books, it makes sense that the adventures that Doctor Jones has gone through are all going to be different. An Indy adventure is not defined by the formula of (Deserts+Nazis+Christian Artifact=adventure) The films themselves tell us that Indy has been doing other stuff like teaching, and finding smaller artifacts like the remains of a Chinese Emporer.
No matter what events are in the next Indy film, it will not be a bad film as long as it focuses on the journey and not the goal. This is why we watch the films. So Temple was different. So what. It was a non-stop roller-coaster ride and the ride these films take us on are what brought us here in the first place. This is the kind of film I will pay money to see, regardless if critics call it a bad film. Ask yourselves this: Why did I want to watch an Indy film in the first place, and why did one appeal more or less to me than the other? Bad films are the ones that draw you to them for the sole reason of watching them. Good films move you in some way.
And for the record, my favorite is Raiders, and I hate Batman 3+4 and hope somebody tries to order a hit on Joel Schumacher for turning them into comic books that have sound.
Post a Followup: